The technical aspects of photography are so easy to teach and critique, very objective and defined.
But then you also get into the 'break the rule' departure which may be technically not 'per the book' but which are very valid from an articstic perspective. For example, I have shot tungsten balanced film at dawn because I wanted bluer color balance...that isn't technically correct, but it is artistic interpretation of the scene!
And lastly, composition is so subjective...what works for one fails to work for someone else. As I pointed out to someone who invited me to critique a body of work of his, I hate Impressionism and Picasso..so who am I to critique his photography?!?!?!
Who appoints any of us to be photographic 'god' and declare what works and what doesn't from any artistic standpoint? In painting, very different styles were popular over the centuries, but any single style comes and goes, so it is with photography...different strokes for different folks. that is why I seldom every criticize someone's photo from any aspect other than technique or techical because that is a bit better defined.
Wilt this is all true. However I think what scraggles and I are both intrested in are more of the rules. It is kinda like my job. I know what the rules are (actually laws), and I know how to bend the rules to accomplish the sale when need be without breaking any of those LAWS. I once posted a photo that I was somewhat "proud" of and got a bashing, but I learned from that bashing. I wished people would post more of thier opinions. I understand that a lot of the time that it is just that an opinion. I would like however to see some of the professionals - the great photographers - offer insite to some of us ameture photogs. I guess that is what we are really asking for when it comes right down to it. Explainations in what would make a photo better, what composition would have been better, etc.
Jamie
